quote:Originally posted by J.L:I continue to study space history because there is not much to look forward to. I wish I felt different.

There is a lot to look forward to, it is just not government managed.

ea757grrlMember

Posts: 614From: South CarolinaRegistered: Jul 2006

posted 08-20-2013 04:02 PM
I have experience in preservation campaigns over the last two decades. I've also had my attitudes about what to save, and what to let go, shift over those same two decades. Once upon a time I was squarely in the "save it all" camp, but I've realized you can't do that. You have to figure out what's worth saving, what can be saved... and what's going to be involved to keep it around.

Without a constant influx of dollars and a ton of maintenance, especially in a salt air environment, you're not going to preserve much for very long. This is part of why it's so hard to preserve large ships; when they were active, working ships they had a source of funding and personnel just for keeping them in fighting trim, but once they're turned over for preservation all that has to be done by (expensive) professionals or, more often, volunteers. And the high costs of maintenance are frequently too much.

Part of me is sad that Hangar S, for example, isn't long for this world. Part of me is sad the Mercury Control Center is gone. I'll sort of hate that the HQ building will eventually go by the wayside (but having been in it, there's nothing really that impressive about it; it's remarkably like every other '60s-vintage government office building you've ever been in). At some point you have to figure out what's practical to save, and how you're going to use it. Otherwise, they'll fall in on themselves. You can't expect to save them, or anything else, without a viable plan for reuse and upkeep, and a source of funds.

I'd love for certain historic elements of KSC and CCAFS to be kept around. But I have to weigh that sentimental argument against the realities that the resources are scarce, the real estate will be needed for new projects, and some of those facilities may be beyond saving or, frankly, not worth saving. Sometimes the best you can do is document them the best you can for posterity, and then let them go.

onesmallstepMember

Posts: 733From: Staten Island, New York USARegistered: Nov 2007

posted 08-21-2013 12:21 PM
I agree with all the points in the previous post. Having been to many museums/historic sites/preservation areas, it is difficult and sometimes painful to make decisions on what to keep/protect for posterity and what to discard or pass on. For example, trenches built on the Western Front by the English and Germans during WW1 were recently excavated in Belgium, and many objects from that era were retrieved. The trenches themselves are in poor condition, with the wooden planks preserved there only by the mud and dirt covering them. The objects were kept for museum display, with the trenches being reburied again.

For every historic site or artifact, a debate goes on in a curator's mind: Has this been altered too much from its original state/condition? What can it teach future museumgoers or scholars? Is it more/less relevant to other things that can be better preserved and interpreted? And what of the cost? Not an easy task, but at least we have three intact Saturn Vs for future generations to see and appreciate as well as other historic artifacts that were sent aloft from KSC and Cape Canaveral. We should be thankful for the foresight of others in preserving them.

Jim BehlingMember

Posts: 700From: Cape Canaveral, FLRegistered: Mar 2010

posted 08-21-2013 12:43 PM

quote:Originally posted by Fra Mauro:Don't we try to this with, let's say WWII or Civil War artifacts or battlefields. Two ideas I cannot shake — one, is that the glory days of space travel are over, and one of the effects of demolition is to play into the hands of the opponents of NASA manned spaceflight. If the KSC looks useless, then why keep it?

WII or Civil War battlefields are no longer active. Or used for war games.

KSC still has a use, just not certain facilities.

US manned spaceflight does not equate to NASA manned spaceflight.

J.LMember

Posts: 481From: Bloomington, Illinois, USARegistered: May 2005

posted 08-21-2013 08:13 PM

quote:Originally posted by Jim Behling:...especially if some astronaut touched it.

Sounds like you have some sort of axe to grind. That just seems like a flippant response... almost like you are assuming everyone interested in preserving history is an astronaut worshiper.

I don't think you meant it that way, but it does come across that way.

Jim BehlingMember

Posts: 700From: Cape Canaveral, FLRegistered: Mar 2010

posted 08-21-2013 10:46 PM
There is a heavy bias towards manned spaceflight especially when it comes to spaceflight history. Nobody is complaining about status of SLC-1W, the pad of the first VAFB orbital launch or launch site 576A, where the first US ICBM's stood alert.

This website has a manned spaceflight tilt (it is given for astronaut signatures and flown hardware) but even when it comes to items that are applicable to both areas, such as patches, photos, postal covers, etc.

onesmallstepMember

Posts: 733From: Staten Island, New York USARegistered: Nov 2007

posted 08-22-2013 12:15 PM
I think Jim's point was misunderstood, if not misinterpreted. In his comment 'a', he clearly began with "Relevant space artifacts are preserved." I'd rather see money and labor spent toward maintaining the spacesuits, hardware, paperwork etc. used inside Hangar S by the astronauts since Mercury than an entire, possibly decaying structure. Save signage, maybe some doors etc. but sometimes you have to make a hard decision in what amounts to 'space archeology.'

posted 09-13-2013 01:32 PM
As mentioned earlier, the KSC Headquarters Building is on the demolition list. This 2012 HQ Historic American Buildings Report is an historical survey in photos and descriptive data of the KSC Headquarters Building.

From July 1966 to December 1972, the FCTB trained Apollo astronauts for their upcoming flights while they lived at KSC. The training was mostly mission-specific, but included some general flight training as well. To support the training activities, the FCTB High Bay held two CSM simulators and one LEM simulator ...

LM-12Member

Posts: 1175From: Ontario, CanadaRegistered: Oct 2010

posted 05-16-2014 09:12 PM

quote:Originally posted by Ken Havekotte:Most of the documentation that I have seen, used by the building supervisors and crew quarters' personnel, refer to the building as MSOB, though, going back to 1965.

There is an article in the January 14, 1965 issue of the KSC Spaceport News titled "Spaceport Buildings Renamed" that might have more details.